U.S. Marines, U.S. Ambassadors and an Unconstitutional President

Clarifying the natural citizenship issue

By Adrien Nash · September 17, 2012

There are three widespread delusions regarding U.S. citizenship, but they are of a subtle, unrecognized nature. They are due to common, seemingly common-sense assumptions, but those assumptions are the opposite of the truth.

The first erroneous assumption is that any citizenship that is not the result of the naturalization process is a form of citizenship which allows one to be the President.

The second erroneous assumption is that anyone born within the sovereign borders of the U.S. is a U.S. citizen and therefore the first assumption applies to him or her.

The third erroneous assumption is that anyone not born within the U.S. is ineligible to be President because they are in the same category as naturalized citizens.

There is also a fourth false idea, -one that eligibility to be President is tied to a concept (one lacking a logical basis), that the Constitution’s reference to the President’s required natural citizenship includes birth on U.S. soil. That idea is false because the concept is a mish-mash contrivance that conglomerates two opposite citizenship principles, -one natural and one artificial, or man-made.

The contrived concept marries the principle of natural citizenship with the feudal concept of boundary-determined citizenship. It takes the Constitution’s eligibility requirement; “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of the President” and pontificates that such citizens must have American parents and be born on American controlled soil.

That sounds reasonable and wise on its face, but in fact its face is not enough. An extraneous factor which complicates the issue is the rare but ever-constant exception to the rule. That exception is the nature of the national membership of babies born to Americans living in foreign nations.

Such foreign domiciled American parents are not less loyal, patriotic, or “American” than they were before moving and living abroad. They are still who and what they’ve always been, and if what they are is more than just an average American, then they may be even more pro-American than their fellow countrymen living in America.

I speak of those who represent America to the governments of the world, -our foreign Ambassadors, consuls, and representatives (along with their support staff). They are now in the national consciousness due to the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, along with the former Navy Seals assigned to him.

The questions that no one ever asks is: “What is the nature of the citizenship of a child born abroad to such Americans? Is it the same as its parents? Or is it citizenship granted by the government, -without which it would not even be an American?”

Those questions go to the heart of whether or not a traitor to the constitution has been occupying the White House since January 2009. The salient question is: “What is the nature of natural citizenship, and does Barack Obama possess it?” The issue of the nature of natural citizenship is related to two subjects; those born with a foreign father and those born to American parents but in a foreign country.

Clearly, those two possibilities have little in common since one is related to blood and the other to borders. Are natural citizens those born to American citizens or simply those born on the land of American citizens? Or … are both necessary? The only way to deduce the correct answer is to recognize the principle involved in producing a natural citizen.

Those highly educated, intelligent attorneys who insist it is both are oblivious to the principle on which natural membership is based. But our founding fathers were not, and they had a more down-to-earth understanding of the basis of natural citizenship and how it impacted Americans in the real world. They weren’t thinking about the arcane subject of American children born abroad when they were laboring on writing the new constitution of government, but they never thought for a moment that American sons, such as one hypothetically born in Tripoli to Ambassador Stevens or the ex-Navy Seals accompanying him were ineligible to be considered as presidential material no matter how great the sacrifice of their father, or themselves in serving their country.

The founders saw no difference in American sons based on the soil on which they were born. Rather, the difference between American sons was a reflection of what kind of father they were born to. A foreign father or an American father? A father holding and defending American values and the United States Constitution, or a father suffused with foreign ideas of government and total subjection to it? -A father that embraced individual liberty or one that bowed deeply in subservience to the government and its right to be lord & master of all?

Did the citizenship of one’s father make any difference to the founders? None whatsoever when it came to serving in the U.S. Government and military as long as they had become American citizens, -unless one was the one in millions who might be elected to be the Commander-in-Chief of all of America’s federal and military forces, -along with being the President and head of all the government departments. Only then did it make a difference, -and that difference was clear and absolute.

When it came to the power of the head of all United States military forces, the founders recognized a difference between a citizen born of an American father, even if born in Tripoli, and a citizen born of a foreigner, an alien, with no organic natural connection to the United States by blood or birth.

One was an American by nature, while the other was an American via the human contrivance of positive law passed on the behalf of such alien-born children. One could be presumed to be a loyal American, while the other would have a cloud of doubt hanging over his head, even though born somewhere that was within U.S. sovereign borders.

The founding fathers were not ignorant fools who were unaware of the reality of the danger of such a scenario, but in their minds and era it was related to children of British privilege who were staunchly loyal to the King of England, instead of Islam.

If a British noble or aristocrat or loyal subject brought a child into the world in the United States, that child was not an American because the father was a subject of a foreign power and not subject to the political authority of the United States over its citizens and immigrants.

Such a child not only was not a natural born citizen, it was not a citizen at all. But it could have been a native-born citizen in one or more of the sovereign states (-where citizenship was determined, and perhaps granted, to “sons of the soil”).

But the federal government did not recognize such citizenship as natural citizenship so such a citizen would not be eligible to be the President.

The federal government recognized four types of citizenship, and they are analogous to the four types of American servicemen.

Let’s connect them thusly; the Marines are equivalent to natural born citizens.

The Army is equivalent to naturalized citizens.

The Navy is equivalent to “native-born” citizens, -those with foreign fathers.

And the Air Force is equivalent to derivative citizens, -those children or wives who obtained citizenship upon the father/husband becoming naturalized. Their citizenship was derived from his.

[As for the Coast Guard, it could be equivalent to provisional citizens, -minors, born abroad to foreign fathers and American mothers who later divorced. Their citizenship depended on them living in the United States to fulfill the required provision of a naturalization statute.]

The insight gained by this analogy is that just as all members of the American military services are American servicemen and women, they are not all U.S. Marines. There is a difference. They all have the same rights, but they do not all have the same privileges. They are essentially equal, but some are more equal than others, -just as natural citizens (the 97%) are eligible to be President, but the other citizens are not.

Similarly, the U.S. Marines have a special role, and honor, and that is to guard the Embassies of the United States, as well as to guard the President himself in the White House, and to provide him helicopter transportation.

When the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and his three bodyguards were received back home, it was the Marines only who had the honor of attending to their caskets, and supplying the brass band to commemorate the ceremony.

There was a reason for that, -it wasn’t some undefined happenstance capricious reason either. It was based on a principle (they are the force responsible for guarding Ambassadors), just as the mandate that the President be no one except a natural born citizen is based on a principle of nation security, unquestionable loyalty, and allegiance to American values and America’s Constitution.

But in our liberalized, lax, unfaithful culture, loyalty and fidelity to our Constitution is a thing of the quaint and stuffy past. And so we’ve seen an unconstitutional candidate be elected to the presidency, and not one national voice in the main stream media or government made a peep.

No senator fulfilled his duty to vet and reject an “unqualified candidate,” nor did even one Supreme Court Justice, including the Chief Judas, say a word when it came to swearing in someone who was forbidden by the Constitution to hold the office. If that is allowed to happen again, you can safely assume that constitutional law is nearly dead.

About arnash“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason.
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their
behalf.” - George Orwell
“Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

3 Responses to U.S. Marines, U.S. Ambassadors and an Unconstitutional President

You failed to mention the children born to all American servicemen and women and their spouses who are stationed all over the world, and either live on military installations or on the local economy. These children are natural born Americans if both of their parents are natural born citizens, even if born in a local, non-American hospital or in a base hospital. To say otherwise is to try and use the same tactics the Obozo campaign tried to use against McCain (born to natural born American citizens in Panama when his father was stationed there).

Thanks for pointing that out. I had actually escaped my attention since I’d overlooked the spouses of servicemen (being a single “hermit” and all).

Nat Act 1790 …and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

Nat Act 1795: Sec 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:
Naturalization Act 1795: “Sec 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized,…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, *shall be considered as citizens* of the United States:”

“Justice Gray…concluded that the English common law jus soli rule survived the American Revolution and adoption of the Constitution.”

It’s pretty likely that he was from a state, perhaps Virginia, which naturalized children of its immigrants at birth, making them sons of Virginia via jus soli. His mind may have been so suffused with jus soli from his whole life background that he just presumed it was the same else where.
My sister recently handed me a fingernail clipper when I asked for one but it was curved outward instead of inward. I was astonished that such a thing existed, and she was surprised to hear that I’d never seen such a thing in my life, while she didn’t know there was any other kind! And she’s live 60 years. We presume things because of our experience or lack thereof, our assumptions coloring our conclusions. AN

“Considered as” is directed at the persons assigned the posts of doing the considering. Every entry port officer would ask himself; “Is this person or child from abroad an American or an alien? If they are an American do I care at all what kind of citizen they are? Why should I, -ingress into the country has nothing to do with Presidential elections. I don’t care if they are a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen. It’s all the same when it comes to being allowed in. I only care whether or not they are a citizen. Congress has told me that they are. That’s all I need to know.” And so that is all that they were told when it was rewritten. AN

President Madison understood the principle of natural law by which children of Englishmen, though American born, were natural born Englishmen by patrilineal descent, proven further by this:
“…eventually declared McClure alien born. He then ruled that he became a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina…but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.”
He went from being a natural English born subject to being an American via derivative citizenship. Whatever the father is, so is also the son. In nature paternity is everything. Location is an element of law, not nature; -an element of legal citizenship, not natural citizenship.

The truth about the 1790 Nat. Act: ” …and thereupon such person shall be *considered as* a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized,…shall also be *considered as* citizens of the United States.”
Notice the language: “considered as citizens of the U.S.”, which means that they *ARE* citizens of the United States. Their citizenship is not a fiction of law. It is real.

Similarly: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be *considered as* natural born Citizens:”
Considered as natural born citizens meant that they in fact actually were natural born citizens, and not a fiction of law, -pseudo natural born citizens.

There was only one reason to declare them citizens and that was as an order to all port authorities and magistrates that they were never to treat their fellow Americans as aliens.
Bear in mind also, that foreign women who married American men could become American citizens before ever stepping foot on American soil. They would enter the country as new Americans even though they were also foreigners. Why would they be allowed in?

Because of the authority of Congress and the declarations made either by its Act or by federal officers who controlled federal policy. Such authority was what was being exercised by those declarations.
But in adding the words “natural born” they went a big step further, and there is no explanation on earth for having done so other than the one that I presented previously. Silence should not be misconstrued as disagreement because disagreement is impossible without an alternate explanation, and there is none.
Congress wanted the world to know that place of birth was irrelevant as long as an American son lived in his country for 14 years. Then, if 35 years of age, he would qualify to be President. Thus the Paris-born hypothetical or real son of T. Jefferson, and the London born hypothetical or real son of J. Adams were eligible to be President just like their fathers. No real-world reason on earth could justify denying them their birthright. AN

dick head wrote: “if an alien father was a criminal then it would be hard for me to believe the child of such aliens would automatically be granted citizenship by virtue of us birth. I am struck at how highly educated, moral, wise..the Founders were.”

I’ll bet that no one who was illiterate would have applied for citizenship, and that it wasn’t granted to one who was. Being informed and being able to read the Constitution and the Bible are primary elements in maintaining public morality and an honest free republic, though there were probably exceptions, as well as corrupt highly literate people (Federalists who passed the Alien & Sedition Acts). AN